Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real behavioral context beyond the bare destructiveHint annotation: the write lands on a LIVE public status page (public exposure), notify=true fans out emails to subscribers, and the full REST endpoint is given. Missing details like whether updates are immutable/append-only or any rate limits keep it short of 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense, front-loaded sentence carries purpose, visibility, notification behavior and endpoint with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, where it lands, and the notification side effect, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits error/state-transition behavior and irreversibility of subscriber emails.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description restates notify=true and gives lifecycle examples for type, but that largely duplicates the schema's own 'common values' list rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('POSTS an update ... to an existing incident') and names the affected surface (LIVE public status page), with the lifecycle stages enumerated. It stays clearly distinct from statuspal_create_incident, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with statuspal_update_incident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly frames the usage context: adding a lifecycle update to an already-existing incident, with notify=true as the subscriber-notification path. No exclusions or explicit alternative routing (e.g., use update_incident to change incident fields) are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.